Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Closing instructions

Contents 1 How to use this page 1.1 What not to propose for discussion here 1.2 Reasons to delete a template 1.3 Listing a template 2 Discussion 3 Current discussions 3.1 November 24 3.1.1 Template:Buleleng Regency 3.1.2 Template:Pieces-style 3.1.3 Template:Cite Research Publication 3.2 November 23 3.2.1 Ship_tables 3.2.2 Template:Tfdendsp 3.2.3 Template:Azeri Picture 3.2.4 Template:Alexa rank 3.2.5 Template:Barracks Batteries Bunkers and Forts, South Coast, New South Wales 3.2.6 Template:Boxoutbegin 3.2.7 Template:Bagginsfamily 3.2.8 Template:Age for adult 3.2.9 Template:Bust a Groove 3.2.10 Electoral calendar templates 3.2.11 Template:ASR character 3.2.12 Template:4myself4B 3.2.13 Template:Infobox Telecom Engineer 3.3 November 22 3.3.1 Template:R uncategorized 3.3.2 Template:Hollywoodandvine.com/beachboys 3.3.3 Template:Clique Girlz 3.3.4 Template:Saw Fictional Chronology 3.3.5 Template:Infobox Coronation Street character 3.3.6 Template:PND-pure 3.4 November 21 3.4.1 Template:Thatcherism 3.4.2 Template:Vertical Maya 3.4.3 Template:Melbourne Storm - 2000 World Club Challenge winners 3.4.4 Template:Kambojas 3.4.5 Template:Infobox U. S. Federal Government 3.5 November 20 3.5.1 Template:Indian Highways 3.5.2 Template:Indian Economic Data 3.5.3 Template:India Quizmaster Round1 3.5.4 Template:Roman Catholicism2 3.5.5 Template:Indianlang infobox 3.5.6 Template:National sports teams of Sri Lanka 3.5.7 Template:Rachel Talalay 3.5.8 Template:All pages 3.5.9 Template:Population of the Philippines 3.6 November 19 3.6.1 Template:Urban areas in India by population 3.6.2 Template:Population of Jerusalem 3.6.3 Template:Lugo Province Population 3.6.4 Template:Significant populations 3.6.5 Template:Population of Miyagi municipalities 3.6.6 Template:South Asian Population USA 3.6.7 Template:Population pyramid 3.6.8 Template:English populations 3.6.9 Template:Population dynamics topics 3.6.10 Template:Galician Population 3.6.11 Template:Toronto population 3.6.12 Template:Spanish comarca 3.6.13 Template:Container-cat 3.6.14 Template:OriginalHornets 3.6.15 Template:Saudi Arabian political parties 3.6.16 Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni 3.6.17 Template:Louisiana State University 3.6.18 Template:Climate 3.7 November 18 3.7.1 Template:Voice Actors 3.7.2 Template:External Links 3.7.3 Template:Werdnabot 3.7.4 Template:New unreviewed article 3.7.5 Template:Indiana Hoosiers 2006 men's basketball roster 3.7.6 Template:The Powerpuff Girls 3.7.7 Template:-) 3.7.8 Template:British Film Institute name 3.7.9 Template:2 cell table row 3.7.10 Template:Biasutti skin color map 3.8 November 17 3.8.1 Template:SPI fork 3.8.2 Template:OtherusesSubtopicAlias 3.8.3 Template:Infobox Language/Coptic 3.8.4 Template:Toronto Blue Jays first round draft choices 3.8.5 Template:St Kilda FC 2009 MPT 3.8.6 Template:St Kilda FC 1965 MPP 3.8.7 Template:Nnbilateral 3.8.8 Template:EduCARE India 3.8.9 Template:Historic regions of northern india 3.8.10 Template:Wide Area Networks in India 3.8.11 Template:Infobox MSingh cabinet 3.8.12 Template:LS1952b-Sibasagar-North 3.8.13 Template:Allison Iraheta 3.8.14 Template:Biju Janata Dal 3.8.15 Template:AcademyAwardBestOriginalScreenplay 3.8.16 Template:Black Eyed Peas singles 3.8.17 Template:Jada 4 Old discussions 4.1 November 16 4.1.1 Template:WikiProject Arts 4.1.2 Template:Stubclass 4.1.3 Template:Kevin Lima 4.2 November 15 4.2.1 Template:Mario and sonic at the olympic games 4.2.2 Template:Hyperoperations 4.2.3 Template:Sonic Retro 4.2.4 Template:Harvey Birdman 4.2.5 Template:Self-citation 4.2.6 Template:Jcon 4.2.7 Template:This is a redirect 5 Completed discussions 5.1 Closing discussions 5.2 To review 5.3 To convert 5.4 To Substitute 5.5 To orphan 5.6 Ready for deletion 6 Archive and Indices

[edit] Current discussions

[edit] November 24

[edit] Template:Buleleng Regency

Template:Buleleng Regency (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Nothing but redlinks. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Pieces-style

Template:Pieces-style (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Incoherent information and ugly design. Maybe better to scrap it than spend time making sense of this? Kleinzach 00:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Hodge podge of items, inculding red links, without apparent rationale for in-/exclusion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Are red links a reason for deletion? How is a rationale apparent in a template? Hyacinth (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The template is fairly old and was based on a template by someone else, meaning that its design is even older. Hyacinth (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Cite Research Publication

Template:Cite Research Publication (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Parameters already included in Template:Cite conference; lacks coding, usage summary, parameter description, etc. momoricks 00:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 23

[edit] Ship_tables

• Template:Ship_range_table_yes
• Template:Ship_struck_table_yes
• Template:Ship_armament_table_yes
• Template:Ship_reclassified_table_yes
• Template:Ship_aircraft_table_yes
• Template:Ship_ordered_table_yes

Utterly orphaned set of templates, not edited for 4 years. TB (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Tfdendsp

Template:Tfdendsp (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Currently unused since the TFD logs are not organized like the AFD logs. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose because the (hopefully soon) implementation of LiquidThreads will allow this template to work by linking to the appropriate thread. Might as well keep and modify when we're ready intead of dealing with the inevtable re-creation of previously deleted material later. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Azeri Picture

Template:Azeri Picture (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Orphaned template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Alexa rank

Template:Alexa rank (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Alexa rank none (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Orphaned template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Barracks Batteries Bunkers and Forts, South Coast, New South Wales

[edit] Template:Boxoutbegin

Template:Boxoutbegin (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Orphaned template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Bagginsfamily

Template:Bagginsfamily (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Unused template. Could be substituted if it is of use somewhere? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Age for adult

Template:Age for adult (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Orphaned template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Bust a Groove

Template:Bust a Groove (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Orphaned template (only three entries) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Electoral calendar templates

Template:Electoral calendar 2004 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Electoral calendar 2005 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Electoral calendar 2006 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Electoral calendar 2007 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Electoral calendar 2008 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Electoral calendar 2009 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Electoral calendar 2010 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Subst and delete these similar single-use templates. These templates are being used in a very non-standard way where, for example, {{Electoral calendar 2004}} is being used to tranclude almost the entire content of the Electoral calendar 2004 article. Instead, the meta template system being used with these articles, {{Electoral calendar}}, should be modified to be consistent with any other navbox: only list links relevant for a navbox and not call another sub-template that contains article content. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ASR character

Template:ASR character (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:ASRcharacter (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Orphan, not sure what it is supposed to do. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:4myself4B

Template:4myself4B (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Specific template to be awarded by a single user. Could be moved to userspace? Currently unused. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Telecom Engineer

[edit] November 22

[edit] Template:R uncategorized

Template:R uncategorized (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Category:Uncategorized redirects has been deleted so it no longer serves a purpose. Cenarium (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Hollywoodandvine.com/beachboys

Template:Hollywoodandvine.com/beachboys (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Unusued, possible test page, no possible usage GlassCobra 14:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Clique Girlz

Template:Clique Girlz (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Minor band, not enough links to justify a template. GlassCobra 13:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Saw Fictional Chronology

Template:Saw Fictional Chronology (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Entirely redundant. The chronology of the films exists on the Saw main template which is at the bottom of all saw related pages, there is no point to this template. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Metal Gear series fictional chronology
Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker Metal Gear Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake Metal Gear Solid (The Twin Snakes) Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots

Keep: The series template only shows the films from one-to-six order with the other story media in other sections of the template, making it an extremely poor representation of the chronology. Seeing as how Saw: Rebirth takes place before Saw (which was released later) and that Saw: The Video Game takes place between Saw and Saw II, even though it was released right before Saw VI. Then there's the short film which sits next to Saw chronologically because they describe the same story. Finally, the fact that Saw III and Saw IV occur at the same time chronologically makes this even more mixed up. If this was a confusing paragraph to read, it was meant to. That is because that exact template is the only simple way to accurately show the chronology of the Saw series. This all results in a simple template that belongs in the plot sections of all story canon media to show where they occur as readers browse the plot sections of Saw related articles. This is nearly identical to the Metal Gear Solid series chronology template, seen to the right, that has games set in separate storylines and formats, which makes the template the best way to show this. Basically, the series template at the bottom is an inadequate chronological display as it is not just for the films, but all Saw media and the films are mixed up chronologically as well, only this template can easily describe chronology, a key element of the Saw franchise, to readers. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Which would be fine were it not for the fact that sections of Saw IV happen before Saw, that Saw V features a scene from Saw and Saw VI has scenes from Saw III. The films are inter mingled and this template serves no useful purpose other than to list films which are already in order. This is not a series with prequels and sequels, each film moves forward, however incrementally, from the last and after Saw III they all feature flashback to previous films. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, flashbacks do occur in nearly every film that are spread throughout the series and in between their plots, but the current timeline in which the films take place in are represented on the template completely and purposefully. The flashbacks only supplement the sequences actively happening and do not reflect the main timeline of the film. Think about it, most of Saw (2004 film) is a flashback explaining background on Gordon and Adam; Saw II is largely a flashback on the nerve gas house (daniels trap); Saw III reflects on past traps and Jigsaw's and Amanda's past; Saw IV deeply details Jigsaw's origins and motives; Saw V details how Hoffman met Jigsaw and became his apprentice; and Saw VI details Jigsaw's connection to William Eastion. None of these flashbacks are stories of their own but give insight to the current timeline, which is the entire purpose of the story and, more importantly, the plot sections of the Saw articles, which only briefly tell the key points of the flashbacks. So, besides the fact that storylining every single scenes timeline would be impossible, it is irrelevant as only the current events are the focus. As these aren't exactly linear though (like Saw: The Video Game between Saw and Saw II/ Saw III and Saw IV being concurrent), the template is the best and easiest way to show where they lie, an important piece of information. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

delete : useless Nico92400 (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep: I think the point here is showing when the setting of each film takes place, not their plots. Saw III and IV happened at the same time (midquel), but their backstories took place before Saw II, Saw, Saw Rebirth, etc. That's not important for the template and that should be left within the articles. However, the template is only being used for the chronology of the films.--Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 18:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Coronation Street character

Template:Infobox Coronation Street character (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Redundant to {{Infobox character}} and {{Infobox soap character}}. This change show that clear. The template was in the past replaced by Infobox character in all related articles and re-created recently. Magioladitis (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the process of creating a full back-catalogue of characters for Coronation Street, and after getting inspiration from the template Infobox EastEnders character 2 I thought this new template would be an excellent way of getting the most basic information as possible in the public domain in the articles. There are a lot of things that Infobox soap character does not have, and as I am expanding the project (slowly I might add), I think the most popular drama in Britain well deserves a template of its own. I believe many fans would agree if asked. Ooh, Fruity 18:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Infobox soap character has all the appropriate information without making unnecessary long list of relatives which don't offer a short overview of the character. This subjet was discussed in WikiProjec Soap Opera in the past. Secondly, at the worst case EastEanders infoox could be used for Coronation characters with some modifications. Infoboxes are not a reward for goof soaps but a tool for writing good articles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep - The template offers a basic information that readers may find helpful, some may visit wikipedia to find a quick simple fact out such as how two certain characters are related, this template is more diverse because you can click and find out without having to read through the rest of the articles contents.

[edit] Template:PND-pure

Template:PND-pure (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

This template was just a test and never used. For links with PND use: Template:PND or Template:Normdaten. Kolja21 (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 21

[edit] Template:Thatcherism

Template:Thatcherism (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Blairism (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

No need for a template: only transcluded in one article. Arguably not directly relevant to any others. Recommend subst'ing and deleting. Robofish (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. It should also be noted that the creator of this template, and the Template:Blairism, which is also transcluded on only one page, has been blocked for six months for edit-warring and sockpuppetry, and so probably won't be contributing directly to our discussion here. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

  Good point, I hadn't noticed that template. I'll include it in this nomination as well. On closer inspection, both these templates have issues with POV over what content to include - perhaps they shouldn't exist at all, as this kind of content may be better done as an article than a template. Robofish (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

  Now transcluded in seven articles, including Thatcherism itself, four pressure groups dedicated to furthering Thatcherism, and two sections of other articles ('Legacy' of Margaret Thatcher, although that should be split into 'Political views' per other politicians; 'Political parties' of Libertarianism in the United Kingdom, which is fine, as Thatcherism is an ideology embraced, for example, by UKIP). Bastin 10:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

  It's not fine at all. Thatcherism was not a libertarian philosophy. Thatcherism melded free-market philosophy with very conservative social policy. It should be removed from Libertarianism in the United Kingdom. Fig (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

  It has a citation, and could easily have dozens more. In fact, tomorrow, I believe I'll write a section in the Libertarianism in the United Kingdom article about the relationship with Thatcherism.

  For what it's worth (and it's not really), you may be getting confused between Thatcherism and 'What Went Down Between 1979 and 1990'. Thatcher, for example, experienced her only Commons defeat trying to legalise Sunday trading. You are correct to note that there is a faction of 'Thatcherites' that were social conservatives (the literature clearly denotes them as much as it does the libertarians), but to suggest that Thatcherism was not related to libertarianism is absurd. That's particularly the case if you look at the organisations that formed the intellectual and ideological backbone of Thatcherism: IEA, ASI, CPS, TFA, etc. All of them are almost universally recognised as both libertarian/classical liberal and Thatcherite, proving that the movement beyond Thatcher herself is clearly a libertarian one. Bastin 19:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Thatcherism, no position on Blairism. First, I should note that I despise all these 'side-bar' templates. They are very disruptive to the article and are usually placed in articles arbitrarily. I will always believe that navigational boxes are best placed at the foot of the article. However, that notwithstanding, there's no reason not to have navboxes on POV grounds, as one can easily place references on the talk page.
  I disagree that the Thatcherism template is only relevant to one article; Conservative Way Forward and No Turning Back were set up with the explicit aim of furthering Thatcherism, and the Centre for Policy Studies basically defined Thatcherism (I've now transcluded the template there). There are also other potential articles that don't currently exist that could easily be constructed from the huge coverage of Thatcherism (perhaps Thatcherism and libertarianism, Thatcherism and the European Union, etc) that cover specific areas of Thatcherite relations with other issues, as opposed to Thatcher's relations with them.
  Blairism, on the other hand, has never been as significant as a movement (rather than just Blair himself and his allies), nor is it likely to be, and there are significantly less coverage of Blairism as a coherent ideology in reliable sources than there is of Thatcherism. Hence, it would be hard to create or identify many articles related to Blairism closely enough to transclude.
  The 'creator' of the templates wasn't a fan of discussion (he was a fan, however, of claiming that Because He Was The Creator, His Opinion Rules All), so I'm sure his absence won't be too sorely missed. Bastin 12:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Vertical Maya

Template:Vertical Maya (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Orphaned template. Not used in any articles, and as far as I know, it never has been. Robofish (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep. This template was created for writing maya numbers with vertical orientation. It should be part a larger template that will produce the complete stella of maya calendar. See Talk:Maya_calendar#New template for the future aspect of the template. It's not finished, because it needs a large number of new drawings, and I am the only one that is creating them. If it's necessary I can create the template with the the work I already have done.Japf (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Melbourne Storm - 2000 World Club Challenge winners

Template:Melbourne Storm - 2000 World Club Challenge winners (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:St Helens - 2001 World Club Challenge winners (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Sydney Roosters - 2003 World Club Challenge Winners (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Leeds Rhinos - 2005 World Club Challenge Winners (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:St Helens - 2007 World Club Challenge winners (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Leeds Rhinos - 2008 World Club Challenge Winners (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Contested housekeeping deletion as deprecated templates, restored per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 3. Brought here for wider discussion. Procedural nomination.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete redundant as these teams are already represented by grand final winning team templates.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Question: What's the difference between these WCC winners templates and the ones for other competitions such as {{Warrington Wolves squad - 2009 Challenge Cup final winners}}, {{2005 Bradford Bulls Super League Grand Final Winning Team}} and {{Sydney Roosters squad - 2002 NRL premiers}}, or do you intend to nominate these later? LunarLander // talk // 11:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The difference is there's nothing to say that the team who wins the Challenge Cup will compete in the Grand Final. There is zero connection between the two competitions. But to win the WCC you must have already won a grand final so your team will already be in that template. I think it's pointless to reproduce that same team template just because the grand final winning team goes on to win a stand alone match 3 months later.--Jeff79 (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep a team's WCC Winners template won't necessarily be identical to that of their previous year's Grand Final Winners template.Julianhall (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: As per Julianhall. Also, your logic doesn't follow through Jeff. In that case, for every year a team has won both the Challenge Cup and the Super League (Bradford in 2003, for example), should we delete one or the other because they're 'represented by grand final winning team templates'? I have a separate suggestion, I'll make it on WP:RL GW(talk) 13:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: I had a problem with them being deleted the first time, sometimes the WCC team is a completely different team from the GF. Mattlore (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the real crux of the issue here. The fact is, the grand final winning team and the WCC winning team aren't sometimes completely different. They are never completely different. The difference between the sides that win the grand finals and the sides that compete in the WCC is minimal. If discussions such as this exist, where the merit of championship team templates is in question, what possible chance do these have? I'm not trying to downplay the importance of the WCC. I've done a lot of work on WCC articles over the years. But it is not defining of a player in the same way that training all year with a team and winning a grand final with them is. But more importantly, the fact that they won the WCC means they are already part of the template for the team that won the infinitely more important championship (unless they were brought into the team during the off season, which further lessens their connection with it and the need for a template).--Jeff79 (talk) 05:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, well if your main objection to the templates is that the teams are largely the same, then I disagree and think they should be kept. If you have other objections then I am quite willing to reconsider. Mattlore (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not, as you suggest, a matter of opinion that the teams are largely the same. It's a matter of fact. Let's look at the numbers for the three most recent:

v • d • e Leeds Rhinos squad - 2008 World Club Challenge winners 1 Brent Webb • 2 Scott Donald • 3 Clinton Toopi • 4 Keith Senior • 5 Lee Smith • 6 Danny McGuire • 7 Rob Burrow  • 8 Kylie Leuluai • 9 Matt Diskin • 10 Jamie Peacock • 11 Jamie Jones-Buchanan • 12 Gareth Ellis • 13 Kevin Sinfield (c)  • 14 Ali Lauitiiti • 15 Carl Ablett • 16 Ryan Bailey • 17 Nick Scruton  • Coach: Brian McClennan

v • d • e Leeds Rhinos squad - 2007 Super League champions 1 Brent Webb • 2 Scott Donald • 3 Clinton Toopi • 4 Keith Senior • 5 Lee Smith • 6 Danny McGuire • 7 Rob Burrow  • 8 Kylie Leuluai • 9 Matt Diskin • 10 Jamie Peacock • 11 Jamie Jones-Buchanan • 12 Gareth Ellis • 13 Kevin Sinfield (c)  • 14 Ali Lauitiiti • 15 Ryan Bailey • 16 Ian Kirke • 17 Carl Ablett  • Coach: Tony Smith

16/18 names duplicated.

v • d • e St Helens RLFC squad - 2007 World Club Challenge winners 1 Paul Wellens • 2 Ade Gardner • 3 Matt Gidley • 4 Willie Talau • 5 Francis Meli • 6 Leon Pryce • 7 Sean Long  • 8 Nick Fozzard • 9 James Roby • 10 Jason Cayless • 11 Lee Gilmour • 12 Mike Bennett • 13 Jon Wilkin  • 14 Paul Sculthorpe • 15 James Graham • 16 Bryn Hargreaves • 17 Keiron Cunningham  • Coach: Daniel Anderson

v • d • e St Helens Rugby League Football Club squad - 2006 Super League champions 1 Paul Wellens • 2 Ade Gardner • 3 Jamie Lyon • 4 Willie Talau • 5 Francis Meli • 6 Leon Pryce • 7 Sean Long  • 8 Paul Anderson • 9 Keiron Cunningham • 10 Jason Cayless • 11 Lee Gilmour • 12 Jon Wilkin • 13 Jason Hooper  • 14 James Roby • 15 James Graham • 16 Mike Bennett • 17 Maurie Fa'asavalu  • Coach: Daniel Anderson

14/18 names duplicated.

v • d • e Leeds Rhinos squad - 2005 World Club Challenge winners 1 Richie Mathers • 2 Mark Calderwood • 3 Chev Walker • 4 Keith Senior • 5 Marcus Bai • 6 Kevin Sinfield (c) • 7 Danny McGuire  • 8 Ryan Bailey • 9 Matt Diskin • 10 Danny Ward • 11 Jamie Jones-Buchanan • 12 Chris McKenna • 13 Gareth Ellis  • 14 Rob Burrow • 15 Ali Lauitiiti • 16 Barrie McDermott • 17 Willie Poching  • Coach: Tony Smith

v • d • e Leeds Rhinos squad - 2004 Super League champions 1 Richard Mathers • 2 Mark Calderwood • 3 Chev Walker • 4 Keith Senior • 5 Marcus Bai • 6 Kevin Sinfield (c) • 7 Danny McGuire  • 8 Ryan Bailey • 9 Matt Diskin • 10 Danny Ward • 11 Chris McKenna • 12 Ali Lauitiiti • 13 David Furner  • 14 Rob Burrow • 15 Willie Poching • 16 Jamie Jones-Buchanan • 17 Barrie McDermott  • Coach: Tony Smith

16/18 names duplicated.

The teams that compete in the WCC are, by definition, the grand final-winning teams. The whole point of the WCC is to have the two champions facing off. I don't see how anyone can dispute that. The notability of the WCC is dwarfed by the notability of winning a grand final. I don't see how anyone can dispute that either. The relatively small number of differences in sides that compete in the GFs and WCC are made up largely of personnel brought into the team in the off season. People who didn't contribute to the team's major success in reaching the WCC, thus diluting the need for them to linked together by additional navbox templates.--Jeff79 (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Merge If its a problem of additional navbox templates both teams could be listed in the same one under the title 2009 Super League and 2010 World Club Champions, well its option to try and please both sides --sss333 (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment It would be great if the future discussion could address the feasibility of a merger as well, per sss333. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Kambojas

Template:Kambojas (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

The links in the nav bar are mostly to redirects to one main article within the nav bar and a couple of others. Better served by links in the See also section. Also see this AfD for an article in this group. Delete -SpacemanSpiff 05:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - even if Migration of Kambojas is deleted, this template would still link five articles (Kambojas, Kamboja (name), Location of the Kamboja Kingdom, Kambojas in Indian literature and Kambojas (Mahabharata)). That's usually enough for a navigational template. There are also other articles that could be added, such as Kamboj in ancient inscriptions and Kamboja Kingdom. Robofish (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox U. S. Federal Government

[edit] November 20

[edit] Template:Indian Highways

Template:Indian Highways (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Not used. Does not serve any purpose. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 17:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Used on a talk page and a test page Frozen4322 : Chat 22:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - of no obvious purpose. Robofish (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Indian Economic Data

Template:Indian Economic Data (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Unused template. Data keeps changing but not updated in long while and not transcluded. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 17:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as unused and redundant to {{Economy of India infobox}}. --RL0919 (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - unused and redundant. Robofish (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:India Quizmaster Round1

Template:India Quizmaster Round1 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Test template. Final version is Template:India Quizmaster. This test template not used and abandoned. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 17:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as unused and redundant to the other template. On a related note, I just moved {{India Quizmaster}} to {{User India Quizmaster}}, per the guidance on userbox naming at WP:UBX. --RL0919 (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - unused test template. Robofish (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Roman Catholicism2

Template:Roman Catholicism2 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Entirely redundant with Template:Roman Catholicism. Only difference is minor sizing issues. Exact same content. Apparently this was a fork created out of some WP:LAME edit war. They couldn't agree on size, so they created two. Please work out the differences, and only use one template. Andrew c ^[talk] 17:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, because two users agree on size, one disagrees. The other template was only made smaller for articles with other items on them. Exactly what disturbance does this template cause? Who is suffering as a result of its existence? Why all this fuss? History2007 (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete (or equivalently) Merge The purpose of templates is to make similar passages in different articles identical, so that they can be modified together; having two almost identical Roman Catholicism templates, which will tend to diverge with time, defeats this end. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, As explained ad nauseam to one individual, the larger template is there for a particular use - which is at the top of articles such as Catholic Church, where it acts as a useful infobox and navigation template combined, thereby avoiding duplication and enhancing the appearance of articles. For that it needs to be infobox sized and not a long thin strip with minute text such as one individual prefers. We therefore agreed to have two formats of the template, one for use in an article body and a second for use at the top of articles. I can't believe some people are so petty and pettifogging as to bring this matter here. If the template were deleted, it would just have to be recreated as either another template or infobox to serve the purpose it does. Xandar 21:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Seriously, someone created a fork template so it could be just slightly wider? If you can't come to an agreement on the width, then open an RfC or build parameters into the template to allow for alternative settings. Duplicating the entire content of a template just to have a stylistic variation is not a good solution. --RL0919 (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Since having alternative settings is less easy to use than having variant templates, I don't see any gain at all in that rather silly suggestion. Xandar 20:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I had not realized that there were two templates, and the formatting differences between them seem very small. I've previewed Catholic Church to see how it would look with the original template, and I really don't see a problem with that - it still works just fine in the lead as a pseudo-infobox. This template is a content fork, and I don't see a good reason to justify that. (Note also that articles are not required to have infoboxes.) Karanacs (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The other template is not the "original". It is one that was changed by a certain individual, and the template up for discussion now is more like the original - and kept for use at the head of pages to allow diversity. However if people really want to start ANOTHER big row, on the subject of templates this time - then voting to delete the template will start that, because we can then have a good long fight about what the one remaining template should look like. For the top of the article we need an info-box style template. I see no good reason to delete the one we've got so we can row about a new one. There are plenty of templates serving Wp articles which have multiple variants. Let's just keep the choice we have and spend our time on something important. I'm not very keen on people coming into an article which they've had very little or nothing to do with - ansd start messing it about for no good purpose.Xandar 20:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Two templates are problematic. This could lead to differing text in both templates, it can lead to confusion over which template to use. This should have been discussed and resolved months ago rather than creating a new template. I find the new solution (a parameter to specify which size to use) to be the cleanest and easiest to use. Karanacs (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per RL0919 ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. If each serves a different purpose, however subtle, there doesn't seem to be any great harm in having both. It appears not to be an issue of X likes this one, and Y likes that one. Each fills a different need. --anietor (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Anietor, two templates, two different purposes. We can use one for one type of page, another for another type, let's allow for this flexibility. NancyHeise ^talk 01:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: Two different templates for two different purposes. Xavier449 (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason for deleting it might have been taking up too much disk space. Like all this discussion does not? There is so much to clean up on Wikipedia and all this talk about a template that does not bite? Give me a break. By the way WP:LAME did not apply to that debate at all. It was WP:superLAME,a new category. History2007 (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I've implemented a |size=large switch in {{Roman Catholicism}}. I suggest to replace the contents of {{Roman Catholicism2}} with {{Roman Catholicism|size=large}} which would allow different sizing while addressing PMAnderson's point. --___A. di M. 21:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you, A. di M., that should resolve everyone's worries - only one place to update content and the ability to display varying sizes. Karanacs (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

So where can we see the difference this produces? Xandar 23:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as redundant. I wasn't going to comment here, but I decided I wanted to be a member of the club whose behaviour is so eloquently described by Xandar as "not involved in positive work... want to cause trouble... silliness... disrupted by the destruction of a key template... unnecessary and probably lengthy/acrimonious debate... meddlesome distraction... some people are so petty and pettifogging...."[1][2] Really, if a position can attract that many ad hominem attacks, it must be right. Hesperian 04:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting. I think we have the beginnings of a new field of social psychology here. Grown adults acting in ways that may provide new insights into the workings of the human psyche under stress. Social clustering, acts of rebellion for rebellion's sake, etc. And all those students looking for PhD topic in psychology thought there was a shortage of material. Observing this discussion is really a good deal of fun. Thanks everyone. Please do continue. History2007 (talk) 11:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Good Grief. Why do I get the feeling that content disputes for the article are now expressing themselves in TfD discussions? I have no strong preferences one way or another. IMO, template #2 is slightly better in appearance, with tighter linespacing and a cleaner appearance than template #1. However, I understand the desire to reduce the number of templates. Majoreditor (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I second the good grief. I apologize for bringing drama here. It was not my intention. I have no preference to which version is kept (and #2 I'm pretty sure can be found originally in the history of #1), and if a switch be implemented that produces both in a single template, so much the better. -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Indianlang infobox

Template:Indianlang infobox (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Unused. Abandoned template. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 17:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:National sports teams of Sri Lanka

Template:National sports teams of Sri Lanka (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Better one already exists {{Sri Lanka National Teams}} Blackknight12 (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Unused and redundant to the other template, which is used. --RL0919 (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - unused and redundant. Robofish (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Rachel Talalay

Template:Rachel Talalay (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Not enough entries to warrant a navigation box, 3, and the director doesn't appear to be directing anymore films ς ح д r خ є 02:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Not enough links to justify a navbox. Could recreate in the future if she starts directing more films. --RL0919 (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:All pages

Template:All pages (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Functionally redundant with {{lookfrom}}, introduces yet another big blue box on disambiguation pages, many of which already have {{wiktionary}}. No prior discussion about whether such a template would be a good idea with Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation, which maintains disambiguation pages or at WT:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). older ≠ wiser 03:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: Per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Reasons to delete a template, redundancy is not a valid reason for deletion of a template unless it is redundant to a better-designed template. Whether or not {{lookfrom}} is actually better cannot possibly be determined through a TfD. It can only be determined through allowing the use of both for a long period of time, and watching discussion that is made about them. As for clutter, that is only a matter of opinion. This is more or less an argument of I just don't like it. I do not find it cluttersome to put this box on as well. Hellno2 (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Neutral: I also dislike the clutter of this template at the top of dabs with wikt & TOCRight templates, but I think the template can be useful if applied case-by-case (not auto-bot-like) to the See also section of dabs that might otherwise use the {{lookfrom}} template. Updated 17:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC): Changing from Keep to Neutral based on technical notes from Thumperward and Johndburger. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Urgh. I don't like that it's pretending to be a sisterlink, and I don't like that it's a self-reference to Wikipedia and "pages". {{lookfrom}} is obviously a utility template: this appears to be expected to be used on articlespace, which is totally inappropriate. Looking through the transclusions, I'm uncomfortable with all of them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Just plain unprofessional, and an excuse for laziness. Do we really think that all, or even most, of the hundreds of results one gets from this template as used on BE are relevant to that term? Editors should carefully consider what belongs on the dab page, and add the entries one by one. I am also unhappy with the WP:SELFREF issues—this template introduces too much of Wikipedia's underpinnings for the average user. —johndburger 17:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The arguments in favor of deletion seem to all be personal dislike. The nom left a message on my talk page prior to this proposal that said "I really don't like having yet another big blue box at the top of disambiguation pages." Under no circumstances is personal taste a valid reason to delete anything. And we cannot guage what is better when something is less than a day old. Hellno2 (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

  The last two dislikes appear to be technical dislikes, not personal dislikes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, it is still a form of dislike. Hellno2 (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

... like when I revert vandalism because I dislike it? Hesperian 00:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please also note, there is a discussion here as to whether determining a template as being "better" is even possible in just a one-week discussion for a template that was around for just a day. Hellno2 (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Rather than plastering a new template in several dozen articles and hoping that the kinks will get worked out in article space, a more typical approach might be to develop the template first in a sandbox, then consult with any projects that might be interested to gauge support and/or to solicit suggestions for improvement. older ≠ wiser 21:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Any opposition comment would be "disliking" something for technical or policy reasons by definition. If anyone is making personal arguments here it's the template author. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Having never noticed {{lookfrom}} before, I checked pages listed in What Links Here. I was looking for a while before I found the link {{lookfrom}} produces, and had to actually view the code to find it. I think the very value of this template is its visibility. It's not like this box shifts focus away from encyclopedic content. DAB page real-estate is specifically supposed to be devoted to helping people find other pages they might have been looking for. Equazcion (talk) 22:53, 12 Nov 2009 (UTC)

  Were this template confined solely to dab pages that would be a good point, but from what I can see it's being used indiscriminately on any page which happens to have a short title. In many cases none of the results have anything much to do with the subject of the page one is on. At the very least this needs to be restricted to dab pages. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - not always useful, but can sometimes be a helpful template; it's effectively a variant to disambiguation pages, and prevents them from being filled with irrelevant links to articles that share part of a name, but aren't really related. Robofish (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

  Disambiguation is for hatnotes, not for arbitrarily-placed floating boxes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - if disambiguation is needed, then a hatnote should lead the reader to a disambiguation page. That page may well include {{lookfrom}} in its See also section. I think that this extra disambiguation-like template will only serve to confuse readers and editors. PamD (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

  Neither of these is a hatnote. At hatnote is a template that is placed on top of a page that says something like "For other uses, see _____ (disambiguation)." It is not used for situations like these and has nothing to do with this at all. Hellno2 (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

  Disambiguation is the only time that we should be directing users to potentially unrelated articles. If disambiguation was not the purpose here, then it is purely for the sake of curiosity - "look, here are some unrelated pages which happen to share some letters with this one!" - and is thus entirely inappropriate. At least {{lookfrom}} is discreet enough that it can be used on, say, projectspace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete and rework lookfrom to look anywhere in a page name (for instance, it makes sense to disambiguate Strike with any page containing "strike" more than just any page beginning with "strike", eg. a use of "the strike" could refer to the 2007-2008 Writers Guild of America strike). We should definitely delete All pages from Wikipedia.--STUART (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment it is far more practical to use a template like this than to list each page starting with the word/phrase. For example, if there is a common given name, it does not make sense to list everyone who has that name on a single page. This template will bring up a computer-generated list. Hellno2 (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  Which is exactly what {{lookfrom}} does now, and less obtrusively. Stuart, another template, {{intitle}} provides the functionality you describe and is also often used on disambiguation pages along with lookfrom. Besides being less unsightly than allpages, lookfrom and intitle are both properly marked as self-references. older ≠ wiser 22:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I agree this is better than {{lookfrom}}. "Lookfrom" should also be kept; different templates may work better for different pages. There are many cases of multiple templates that seem redundant, and some work better in some situations, and some better in others. Xyz7890 (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Could you be more specific about how it is better? Quite apart from the aesthetics, currently it doesn't even function properly. It appears to ignore parameters and use whatever the title of the page is. If you place it on a page with "(disambiguation)", even if you use a parameter without the parenthetical, the lookfrom function still starts from pages that include the parenthetical. For example, see this version of Buckingham (disambiguation). It contains {{all pages|Buckingham}}, but the link takes you to pages that begin with Buckingham (disambiguation). Perhaps that could be fixed, but given there is already a template that actually works and is visually less clutterful, I don't see any need for this. older ≠ wiser 00:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

For all those saying "Keep", what guidance would you give for usage? Only on disambiguation pages, or on articles as well? At the top of the page or in See Also? If at the top, should it go above or below the wiktionary link? Should this be used in addition to {{lookfrom}} on pages that already have lookfrom? Also consider that {{lookfrom}} is often paired with {{intitle}}. Both fit nicely and logically into the See also section (which is where MOSDAB guidance suggests that partial matches should go). If {{All pages}} replaces {{lookfrom}}, does {{intitle}} remain in See also, separated from the other template with similar functionality? older ≠ wiser 00:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This box template could be modified to accommodate the functions of both {{lookfrom}} and {{intitle}}. It could, in a single rectangle, provide links to all pages starting with X and all pages containing X in their title (the exact text, sounding simple and being easy to understand, would take same time to figure out, but it is doable). This would actually be better, as it would kill two birds with one stone. It would surely fit onto most disambiguation pages, and could also be used in some articles when the focus of the article is on the word, perhaps in a "see also" section. Hellno2 (talk) 05:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

And also . . . Really, besides technical differences, the only major difference between this and {{lookfrom}} is that lookfrom has been around longer. I have to say, I do agree with the nom's username, which states "older ≠ wiser." And likewise, older ≠ better. Hellno2 (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you fix the technical problems with the template? If you go ahead and do so, that might help this consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see some agreement about usage and placement as well. I don't agree with placing it at the top of pages, unless there were some way to create a swiss army knife sort of dab utility template that combined links to Wiktionary and the functionality of lookfrom and intitle into a single box. Barring that, it might be unobjectionable if placed in the See also section. And there should be an understanding that the template shouldn't be dumped indiscriminately into multitudes of pages. Finally, in addition to simply making the template function properly in the first place, it should utilize some of the standard CSS classes for consistent formatting. For example it should not use the look and feel of {{sister}} since it is not linking to a sister project. It should identify itself as a self-reference. older ≠ wiser 21:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and make changes: It sounds like the original nom is willing to have this template kept, provided certain changes are made. These changes would be better in the long run if discussed on the template's talk page rather than in the TfD format. All of us could then compromise somewhere. Some possible changes are:
  • One idea I do like is to combine {{lookfrom}} and {{intitle}} into the same box.
  • Some people have objected to it looking like a sister template, but I see nothing wrong with that. If it really bothers some, it could be colored differently to look like something different. The shape is still fine.
  • One of the objections is that it is placed on top of the sister templates. I don't see that as such a major problem, and to complain would be making a mountain out of a molehill. If on some pages, {{all pages}} came first, and on others, a sister template came first, it is no big deal.
  • I do agree also that this could be left off of DAB pages for two-letter acronyms. It is harmless, but not of any help either.

Hellno2 (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The objection isn't that it looks like a sister template. The objection is that it is a sister template: it transcludes {{sister}} in its coding. The coloring is irrelevant.

The other objection is that, when you were placing them indiscriminately you were pushing down the templates that needed to be at the top, namely the wiktionary and TOCRight templates. Since you find it no big deal and the disambiguation project guidelines disagree, will you move those placements down to the "See also" section (creating such a section if needed)? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

@Hellno2, TfD is still the right place to discuss this. 1) The template doesn't actually even work properly and nothing has been done to try and fix that. 2) The template incorrectly transcludes the {{sister}} template when it does not link to a sister project 3) It does not identify itself as a self-reference. 4) There does not appear to be any agreement about acceptable uses or placement of the template. If anything, I suggest removing all instances of this in mainspace pages and moving the template to a sandbox or to userspace until the issues have been addressed. older ≠ wiser 13:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The only reason why the formatting says "{{sister" is to make it appear like a box. If someone know of some other way to make the template appear the same without using the word "sister," that would solve this problem. Hellno2 (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again, no work appears to be in process. I suggest removing all instances of this in mainspace pages and moving the template to a sandbox or to userspace until the issues have been addressed. older ≠ wiser 19:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hellno2, that's not a very good reason to use {{sister}}. You might look into the source code for the sister template, and from there use the {{side box}}, if you want a side box, like it does, without making the new template a sister template, since it's not. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. As another user said above: "Look, here are some unrelated pages which happen to share some letters with this one!" It's useless clutter on disambiguation pages and would be even worse in an article. The idea that the use of this template will serve as an answer to the problem of unrelated articles being listed on dab pages is laughable -- people will keep adding those articles to the page, whether or not this template is there or not, and meanwhile the page will look worse and be harder to use. Propaniac (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I already voted keep during the original listing, but in regard to guidelines: the template should be used prominently on DAB pages, and should be confined to the "see also" section on all other articles. As I said originally, DAB pages are meant to point people to other pages they might have been looking for, so placing this prominently on those pages makes sense. On other pages, the "see also" section would have white space on the right anyway, so it doesn't do much harm to fill it with this box, and the placement wouldn't be prominent enough to be a distraction. Equazcion (talk) 06:03, 21 Nov 2009 (UTC)

  There is no reason to include it "prominently" on dabs either. WP:MOSDAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created: "On a page called Title, do not create entries merely because Title is part of the name." If this template is included on a dab, it should be place in the "See also" section there as well. It does not point people to other pages they may have been looking for -- the articles listed in the linked results are not ambiguous with the dab title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• I would appreciate a response to JHunterJ's second point to Hellno2 above. If this template had been placed in the "See Also" section on all the disambiguation pages where I found it, I would have considered it useless but not a significant detraction from the page. But placing it up top, especially above the wiktionary links and the TOC, is a significant problem, and for Hellno2 to dismiss that for no apparent reason except that he or she prefers to do it that way is a serious concern for me. The template and especially the usage/placement of the template should have been discussed at one of the disambiguation-related talk pages before the creator plastered it across Wikipedia. Propaniac (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It is true. Templates like this would link to a list containing Title City, Title Hospital, and Title University, examples that are stated should not be included. But the list would also TITLE and Title and Title town and Title township, which it states should be included. It is useful, for example, for common names, for which it is impractical to create a page listing all the people with that name. Hellno2 (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Entities that are commonly known as "title" alone, regardless of how the article is titled in Wikipedia, should be listed on a disambiguation page for "title". Disambiguation pages generally do not list people with a given name, unless the name happens to be unusual or the person is very commonly known by only the name. On articles about given names, the {{Infobox given name}} template already incorporates link to look from functionality. This template is not needed for any of the purposes you have identified. older ≠ wiser 23:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Per thumperward. Hesperian 00:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. per all the above keep comments. This is a very useful template that comes in handy in many places. Yes, it is newer than lookfrom, and newer is an improvement. It does need modification, and that is up to editorial work. Xyz7890 (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Population of the Philippines

Template:Population of the Philippines (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Orphaned template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete unless put to use. Robofish (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 19

[edit] Template:Urban areas in India by population

Template:Urban areas in India by population (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Orphan Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I request that if this template be deleted the template the info should be inserted into the main article so that it is not lost Bab-a-lot (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Which article? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as unused, unless anyone wants to add it anywhere. (We still have almost the same content in List of most populous cities in India, I might add.) Robofish (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Population of Jerusalem

Template:Population of Jerusalem (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Population timeline of Dubai (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Infobox population of Swansea (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Population growth of Iceland (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Only used in one article, and hence, could be substituted and deleted. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that if this template be deleted the template the info should be inserted into the main article so that it is not lost Bab-a-lot (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is the meaning of "substitute and delete". Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Subst and delete all, same as below. Robofish (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Lugo Province Population

Template:Lugo Province Population (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Bubi populations (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Orense Province Population (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Igbo populations (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Pontevedra Province population (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Only used in one article and, as such, could be substituted and deleted. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep. The templates were created to condense article info on main article pages, and in anticipation upcoming expansion of these articles where the templates would eventually be used on multiple pages. Bab-a-lot (talk)

I suggest that if this template be deleted the template the info should be inserted into the main article so that it is not lost Bab-a-lot (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is the meaning of "substitute and delete". Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Subst and delete - templates are not needed if they're only used on one article. Robofish (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Significant populations

Template:Significant populations (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Orphaned template (appears to make a table) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that if this template be deleted the template the info should be inserted into the main article so that it is not lost Bab-a-lot (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What information? The template makes a table, but has no content itself. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - unused, and no content. Robofish (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Population of Miyagi municipalities

Template:Population of Miyagi municipalities (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Japan population array (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Unused in article space Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as unused, unless anyone wants to add it anywhere. Robofish (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:South Asian Population USA

Template:South Asian Population USA (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Southeast Asian Population USA (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Orphaned template. Could be substituted into an article if the information is useful? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete if no one wants it. Could be subst'd somewhere, but I'm not sure exactly where. Robofish (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Population pyramid

Template:Population pyramid (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Orphan Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - unused except on the talk page of an inactive user. Robofish (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:English populations

Template:English populations (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Orphan. Could be substituted if needed for a particular article. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - seems to be an old version of the infobox in English people, with no current uses. Robofish (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Population dynamics topics

Template:Population dynamics topics (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Unused sidebar. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - this template has been consolidated into another template, and is no longer used. --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - unused, and seems more like a category than a template. Robofish (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Galician Population

Template:Galician Population (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Seems like a good candidate to substitute and delete? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Subst and delete. Good info, but as a single-use template it should just be substituted into an in-article table. --RL0919 (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Subst and delete per above. Robofish (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Toronto population

Template:Toronto population (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Seems like a good candidate to substitute and delete? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Subst would be fine if it were used, but it appears to be an orphan. --RL0919 (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete if no one wants it. It seems like it could be subst'd somewhere useful, though - Demographics of Toronto, perhaps? Robofish (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Spanish comarca

Template:Spanish comarca (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Redundant to Template:Infobox comarca feeding off the standard template. Himalayan 22:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: the comarca template is currently being used on close to 200 pages. You need to realize that most of the comarca pages on the english wiki are actually translated from the Spanish wiki, and the comarca template is very similar to the spanish wiki's comarca template, making the transition extremely simple. Additionally it contains just the field needed for a comarca, as opposed to settlement. Frankly I started writing my first comarca page on the english wiki, I took one look at the settlement template and was so daunted by the sheer complexity of the thing that I gave up on the idea and delayed writing for six months until I stumbled upon the comarca template. So on the one hand, it may be redundant, but are we really trying for a swiss army template?? And besides, Template:infobox settlement has no color whatsoever and is ugly; comarca is prettier. ^_^ --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 18:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Note Mukkakukaku is a significant contributor to the template.

Comment I would say the excessive use of color is actually a reason to delete it, considering the WP:MOS for color. This isn't Skittlepedia. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Skittlepedia it may not be, but the color adds emphasis. Look at infoboxes for other topics, like the {{Taxobox}}. Infobox settlement is plain old, butt-ugly. Not that any of this is important, since I just meant the color comment as an aside. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 04:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: complete mis-understanding by the nominator. A comarca is somewhat analogous to an English county. It is a unit of administration in Spain and this template as stated above matches the equivalent in the Spanish wiki precisely. A comarca is not a settlement and this template should be kept for use on artciles on Spain in Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't patronise me. I know exactly what a comarca is, We replace this with {{Infobox Administrative division}} or even {{Infobox comarca}}, now find an answer to that one.. Himalayan 17:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment, then it's redundant to {{Infobox county}}? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Actually it's more of an administrative division than a county. The exact meaning of the division depends on which region of Spain you're in. For example, in Catalonia it's a local government area governed by a council, whereas in Valencia it's a historical regional representation that has no meaning in today's government. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 04:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Then it's redundant to {{Infobox Administrative division}}? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindented) Infobox Administrative division is a redirect to Infobox settlement, which is what the original discussion was about. So is Infobox comarca, which is the current "candidate" for redundancy. IIRC, there are about 500 comarcas in Spain alone, which are different from comarcas in Portugal, Panama, etc -- and none of them are settlements. I'm sure it would be possible to create a swiss army template to encompass all forms of human-defined geographical divisions, but really I'm not sure it's necessary. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 20:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that this template could be moved to {{Infobox comarca}} and expanded so that it is not specific to Spain? I could see that as a reasonable compromise. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say, tentatively -- yes that would be a fine solution. Frankly I don't know enough about Comacas in countries other than Spain to really be able to say that. In Brazil they're part of the judicial structure, and I have no idea what sort of information might be included in that case, and I know next to nothing about their use in France and Italy. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 00:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as redundant to any of several mentioned templates. GlassCobra 23:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and replace with {{Infobox comarca}} (revised if necessary) per the compromise discussion above. --RL0919 (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete/deprecate in favour of {{infobox settlement}} (or an appropriate redirect thereto), slap the opposers for being petty, and shoot the relisting admin for failing to spot the emptiness of the opposition. The two contrary arguments seem to be "it's pretty" and "'settlement' isn't an appropriate word". 81.111.114.131 (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - seems redundant to the generic templates. Robofish (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Container-cat

Propose merging Template:Container-cat with Template:Parent category.

Template:Container-cat (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Parent category (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

These two templates, and their respective categories, accomplish the same thing. There is no need to have two separate templates for this purpose. See related discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_30#Category:Wikipedia_categories_that_should_contain_only_sub-categories. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 07:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge. I agree that these essentially duplicate the same function, and should be merged. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete As I said in that discussion, I see no justification for this idea, and even if a justification were to be found, I see no need for this template and the category that goes with it. Debresser (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the template is very useful, moreso than the category. I do use this to perform clean-up of categories, so I would want at least one of the templates kept. The corresponding category is not necessary to perform the clean-up, but the template is crucial to it. I know this won't be convincing to someone who won't consider a justification, but some of us have used this and continue to do so ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. My preference would be to merge {{Parent category}} into {{Container-cat}}, as I think that is the slightly better template, although the other is considerably more widely used. Robofish (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete {{Container-cat}} and rename {{Parent category}} to {{Container category}}. The two are essentially duplicates, but I much prefer the text of {{Parent category}} since it allows the inclusion of subcategories and "a limited number of directly related pages". However, I think the name "container category" is more accurate. For example, Category:American academics is a parent category to Category:American political scientists, yet it contains articles. I believe that "container category" is a better term for a category that should, in most cases, contain subcategories only. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I have commented above stating that I agree generally with merging the templates. I agree with Black Falcon that ending up with one called {{Container category}} is the ideal solution here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:OriginalHornets

Template:OriginalHornets (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

I fail to see why this particular roster is notable. They weren't members of a championship team —Chris!_c/t 00:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as each played for a professional team, and it was Charlotte's first year in existence in a pro league. ArcAngel (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

But many other teams do not have such template? And why is the first year team notable?—Chris!_c/t 05:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - no particular need for this template; we don't need to highlight the original team members. No equivalents for other teams don't exist. Robofish (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notable achievement from the first season, so no particular reason to navbox its members. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Saudi Arabian political parties

Template:Saudi Arabian political parties (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template is only used once, on one of the very pages it links to Politics of Saudi Arabia. Only has one entry, which has been merged to that article too. Fences&Windows 03:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, template can easily be expanded two include the two entries in Category:Political parties in Saudi Arabia. Template part of a wider template scheme. --Soman (talk) 08:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - not many links at the moment, but has at least some possibility for expansion, per Soman above. Robofish (talk)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni

Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/1 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/2 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/3 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/4 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/5 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/6 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/7 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/8 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/9 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/10 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/11 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/12 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/13 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/14 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

New user has created a string of 14 templates, the only content being in each case a photograph of a person, presumably a past student of the college. It is difficult to conceive of a good use for such templates. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the 14 templates have been created using the {{Random subpage}} template. It is used in the St. Xavier's College, Mumbai#Alumni and popular culture section to display random images of Alumni. It is of encyclopedic use. I know I am the first person to use {{Random subpage}} templates in articles as per [3]. This doesn't deserve deletion at all. Xavier449 (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Go on Purging the page for random Images. Xavier449 (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Random images on articles is a bad idea. Garion96 (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • This seems like Garion96's personal opinion. Which Wikipolicy prevents articles from random images. Xavier449 (talk) 06:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Randomly displaying one of several applicable photos on an article is an interesting idea and I don't know of any previous consensus against it. Xavier449 is correct that this is the only article using {{Random subpage}}, but novelty doesn't make something bad. If someone has a good argument for why the idea is bad, I'd be happy to consider that. But at least in this particular case I don't see anything obviously harmful about it. The images being used all seem to be equally applicable as illustrations within the article, all fit in the allotted space, and I don't see any licensing problems for the images. --RL0919 (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 05:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Random images within the project is not appropriate. --Blargh29 (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Would you be willing to explain why you think they are inappropriate? --RL0919 (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes: It makes the pages unstable because each individual view is different. Also, if there is vandalism and one of the images and is replaced by something inappropriate, the vandalism will likely persist longer, because it will only appear 1/14th of the time. The formatting is liable to be altered by different-sized images. Wikipedia encourages mirrors of its content (which is why we're under the GDFL and CC), a goal that is made difficult by these templates, because a data dump might not catch the syntax of the code right. There also might be copyright problems with a random element in the page, because, per the licensing documents, each and every contribution must be attached to a unique user. Something this avant-garde makes the page almost impossible to get through featured article review, which is supposed to be the theoretical goal of every article. It's unencyclopedic and more appropriate for an alumni magagine than a serious encyclopedia. In its defense, it is a pretty creative template, but I don't think it is good for the project.--Blargh29 (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for explaining. I think some of the concerns you mention are not significant problems. I don't see any licensing issue as long as the individual pictures and templates are appropriately licensed. Images are already included on pages via templates in many cases without issue; the randomness of the display doesn't affect this. Similarly, mirror sites already need to pull numerous transcluded templates and images if they want to display pages in the same format that we have them, so there is nothing new on that front. "Unencyclopedic" is a difficult concern to pin down: This is something a paper encyclopedia couldn't do, but there are many others ways WP differs from traditional encyclopedias. FA review standards move with consensus, but if we require pre-existing consensus for an innovation then we would rule out almost all new ideas. Not every change is an improvement, but every improvement is a change, so we need to be open to a degree of experimentation. So all those concerns seem to be non-issues to me. The user experience and vandalism concerns are the most troubling to me, especially the latter. But at this stage they seem hypothetical (there do not appear to be any actual layout or vandalism issues on the affected article), and I would rather risk the possibility of minor disturbances in order to see how an interesting experiment turns out. --RL0919 (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
        • • It' still not clear how displaying random images can harm the project. All reasons seem to be personal opinions w/o proper explanations. I have found it to be an innovative new experiment with great results. Xavier449 (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Masonpatriot (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Invalid Objection: The nominator has not mentioned a proper reason for deletion. Xavier449 (talk) 06:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
    • This isn't a court of law. Please refrain from "Wikilawyering." Decisions are based on consensus, not on objections/counter-objections.--Blargh29 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
      • And you too. should stop giving opinions unless you have valid reasons for deletion. Xavier449 (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - unused, and of no obvious purpose. Robofish (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Invalid Objection: These templates have been used in the {{Random subpage}} template to display Random Images of Alumni. It's not unused. Please check the {{Random subpage}} template here. Xavier449 (talk) 06:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No obvious purpose, creator seems to be content to deride other opinions instead of providing one about why this is useful or encyclopedic. Blargh29 also brings up some valid concerns. GlassCobra 00:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Since we're going another round, I'll take the opportunity to add a few points: First, there is a purpose being served by the templates, contrary to the nomination and some subsequent comments. By displaying a selection of different images, we are exposing free-use images that might otherwise go unused. We can also forestall possible disputes about which image should be used to illustrate the section, by giving several different images an equal shot. Second, in order to see this unusual presentation of images preserved long enough to see how it works out, I am willing to take extra measures to help address concerns raised above. In order to make the usage of the templates clear, if they are kept I will create a documentation page to be displayed at the currently unused parent page Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni. This will also provide a single location for editors to access all the sub-pages to verify their content in case there are questions about whether the images are all of similar size and content, and in case of any concerns about vandalism. I am also willing to watchlist all the templates and associated files to help monitor for any potential vandalism. Finally, I note that I had no prior involvement with these templates or the associated article prior to this discussion. I simply don't think that a novel idea should be quashed based on unsubstantiated concerns or any impolitic comments that an editor might have made during this discussion. There's no policy or standing consensus being contravened here, so I'd like to see this idea play out. Xavier449 only created these on November 1, and they were nominated for deletion the next day, without even a full understanding of how they were being used, much less a chance to evaluate the results. If this setup is on the article for a few months and it doesn't work well (repeatedly vandalized, draws complaints, etc.), I'll come back here and nominate it myself with an explanation of how it failed. --RL0919 (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, for all the reasoned arguments provided above. I'm surprised that a proposal with opposition only from the template creator has needed a second relist. I don't buy the "equal airtime" argument for mainspace - articles should be (reasonably) stable. I don't feel the "exposure" argument has merit - we choose images for their suitability, and that is binary. There is still the very real possibility of sneaky vandalism - you can watchlist the pages, but you can't watchlist all possible pages that have yet to be created, and (most importantly) you would not be able to reproduce the scenario easily ("Hey, I spotted a dick on this page!" "I can't see it. Are you sure?"). There's an important usability issue here - don't give people random content in mainspace unless they specifically ask for it. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 81.111.114.131 (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, but only because of the vandalism issue. Being able to display a range of images is a great idea, but unless we could ensure that it wouldn't be open to vandalism as noted by other editors, this could be a major security problem. Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • If you are so much concerned about vandalism, why not protect the templates. Xavier449 (talk) 06:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't feel the "exposure" argument has merit - we choose images for their suitability, and that is binary. - All Images of notable alumni are suitable for the Alumni section. Hence, displaying Random images is a great idea. This is not a Featured picture competition. If vandalism is a major issue, then the templates can be protected. The templates are anyway not supposed to be modified. Xavier449 (talk) 06:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Louisiana State University

Template:Louisiana State University (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:LSU (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Propose merging Template:Louisiana State University with Template:LSU.
The template is redundant to a better-designed template, plus Template:LSU is older and therefore Template:Louisiana State University should not have been created in the first place. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support merge. {{LSU}} has the better layout and is more widely used. Any valid links from {{Louisiana State University}} that aren't already on {{LSU}} should be moved over and the name redirected. Since this is a navbox there shouldn't be any complications to worry about. --RL0919 (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Merge complete. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Climate

Template:Climate (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Request box created in 2006 by an editor who was working to add climate sections to articles about geographical regions. That editor is no longer active and this template is unused outside his own user pages. Willing to withdraw nom if there is someone else who wants to take up the use of this. RL0919 (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You might check with WikiProject Cities and WikiProject U.S. counties to see if they are interested in taking over the template. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 06:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete - I cant see any point to the template.Jason Rees (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - not used, and not particularly useful - generic request boxes can be used instead. Robofish (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 18

[edit] Template:Voice Actors

Template:Voice Actors (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Don't see what useful purpose this template serves other than cruft. KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. There are far too many voice actors for a navigation template to be useful. Category:Voice actors has 136 pages, plus over 500 more in subcategories. The selection of actors and classification scheme used in this template are probably original research. --RL0919 (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This is a huge subject and not one easily conveyed through the medium of navbox. treelo _radda 00:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - bad idea for a template, for many reasons. Robofish (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:External Links

[edit] Template:Werdnabot

[edit] Template:New unreviewed article

[edit] Template:Indiana Hoosiers 2006 men's basketball roster

Template:Indiana Hoosiers 2006 men's basketball roster (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Orphan template showing a non-notable roster for a college basketball team. RL0919 (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I concur. --146.203.134.50 (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - unused, and nowhere to put it. Robofish (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:The Powerpuff Girls

Template:The Powerpuff Girls (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Still partially redundant as it probably shouldn't be doing double duty for a spinoff which isn't related by enough to share a template. Aside from that, there is the issue of only having four functional links, all of which are readily relinked from each article. treelo _radda 12:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Doesn't seem to be redundant to any other template, and has enough valid article links for a navbox. I don't see any reason why the original show and the spin-off can't be included in the same template. --RL0919 (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• It's redundant to all three articles in the navbox being well interlinked, there's little point in a navbox which offers no benefit to a reader which they can't already get on the same article. The spinoff could use its own navbox template or be mentioned as a spinoff here but not together, they're too disparate. treelo _radda 15:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps it is my lack of familiarity with the particulars of these shows, but they don't seem so disparate to me that they can't share a navbox. Anyhow, I just wanted to note that I updated the TfD notice on the template to use {{Tfd}} instead of {{Tfd-inline}}, since this is a non-inline template. --RL0919 (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - seems acceptable as a navbox to me. Even without the spinoff links, there might just be enough for a template (though it's borderline). Robofish (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just four links is borderline but I've seen navboxes get deleted for more links but equally needless navigation. treelo _radda 20:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:-)

Template:-) (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Completely useless template that serves to do nothing but link an image of a smiley... The thing that should not be 06:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete --SkyWalker (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete + Salt This is a perennial proposal. See the deletion log of Template:Smiley. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 22:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, I personally don't see any harm caused by it, whereas it's very simple to put a smile with it without adding a link to the image.--//microcell 20:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:British Film Institute name

Template:British Film Institute name (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Seems somewhat pointless and is currently unused. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Unused and seemingly abandoned, with no talk and no edits since it was created in December 2008. All it does is produce three words that could be typed in plain text. --RL0919 (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - unused and I agree, pretty pointless. Robofish (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - takes more characters to use than it inserts, and doesn't even introduce a link. Utterly pointless. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:2 cell table row

Template:2 cell table row (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Orphaned template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - unused and unnecessary. Robofish (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Biasutti skin color map

Template:Biasutti skin color map (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Orphaned template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - unused, and redundant to the better image File:Map of skin hue equi3.png. Robofish (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 17

[edit] Template:SPI fork

Template:SPI fork (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

temporary notice template, no longer any transclusions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. Unused. -- œ^™ 05:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - unused, and presumably not needed. Robofish (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:OtherusesSubtopicAlias

Template:OtherusesSubtopicAlias (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

This is a minor variant of {{OtherusesAlias}}, which was deleted following this discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete for same reasons discussed in TfD for {{OtherusesAlias}}. --RL0919 (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, this is one of the few (2?) hatnote templates in all of WP that deals with article sections that need disambiguation. All other hatnotes deal with the article as a whole, not individual sections. Hard to see how this isn't needed. Variation as a reason to delete? That's the digital version of guilt by association. The arguments for this proposal should stand on their own. Dovid (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - even less useful than {{OtherusesAlias}}. As I said for that template, hatnotes aren't needed for this specific purpose, and existing ones are sufficient for other purposes. Robofish (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Language/Coptic

Template:Infobox Language/Coptic (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

This subtemplate was used only on Coptic language, where I replaced it with {{contains Coptic text}}, which is the usual way of dealing with this. Undocumented. Svick (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Wouldn't this be better as a group nom for all of the {{infobox Language}} "contains..." sub-templates? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Unused and redundant to {{Contains Coptic text}}. (Which is barely used itself; maybe we should be working on a generic "Contains language" template" that could take over for several of the less-used "contains" templates?). --RL0919 (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • That's what {{SpecialChars}} (which {{Contains Coptic text}} is subclassed to) is. The reason for the subclasses is to point to the specific help page for the font / workaround required to get the article to display correctly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - unused, redundant to better template. Robofish (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Toronto Blue Jays first round draft choices

Template:Toronto Blue Jays first round draft choices (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Prior consensus has determined that there was no rationale behind keeping these first-round draft pick and positional-style templates unless they were linked to an appropriate "main" article (a la List of Philadelphia Phillies first round draft picks and its navbox). I certainly wouldn't have a problem if such an article existed for the Toronto draft picks, but it currently doesn't, thus the deletion proposal. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, It might take a while, so please make sure it doesnt get deleted beforehand. BLUEJAYSFAN32 ^{(TALK|JAYS)17:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)}

If you need a hand, let me know; for the moment, it doesn't need to be like the Phillies draft pick list. Even a bulleted text list would be preferable to nothing at all. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I put it together (List of Toronto Blue Jays first-round draft picks), all I need to know is if i need External links to be the source for the article, i just used wikipedia, and is the way it is currently set up OK, or does it need a different set up. Thanks. BLUEJAYSFAN32 ^{(TALK|JAYS)19:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)}

I added a link to Baseball-Reference for you, but it doesn't seem to match up; make sure that you verify the list against the source. I also added an external link and the template. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds great, thanks so much. Anything else to keep it from deletion BlueJaysFan32 (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I matched it up to the refrence, added the years to the template, anything else? BlueJaysFan32 (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'll say keep on the basis of the existence of the page, but I suggest you look at KV5's (List of Philadelphia Phillies first-round draft picks and Template:Philadelphia Phillies 1st round) and mine (List of New York Yankees first-round draft picks and Template:New York Yankees 1st round) for guidance. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• And I will say keep because I did make the main page and sourced it, and i gave it my all to keep it. BlueJaysFan32 (talk) 02:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:St Kilda FC 2009 MPT

Template:St Kilda FC 2009 MPT (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

As per previous discussion here, not a notable team The-Pope (talk) 11:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per consensus established at previous discussion. -- œ^™ 10:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Per what I've said before. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 11:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete As there is a consensus. MetroFooty (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:St Kilda FC 1965 MPP

Template:St Kilda FC 1965 MPP (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

As per previous discussion here, not a notable team The-Pope (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per consensus established at previous discussion. -- œ^™ 10:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Per what I've said before. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 11:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete As there is a consensus. MetroFooty (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Nnbilateral

Template:Nnbilateral (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

This is a possibly useful template that I created a while back, but it hasn't really been used. There is a proposal for a bilateral relations notability guideline, which could mean this template is needed. But there is also {{notability}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Unnecessarily specific variant of {{Notability}}. There is no special notability guideline to link to for this topic, and if we start making topic-specific variants of {{Notability}} when there are not special guidelines for the topic, there could be thousands of these. --RL0919 (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - there aren't any specific guidelines for bilateral relations. Generic notability templates should be used instead. Robofish (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:EduCARE India

[edit] Template:Historic regions of northern india

Template:Historic regions of northern india (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Zero bytes. Orphan. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 06:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nominator. A template with subjective and ill defined subject matter.Shyamsunder (talk) 07:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Unused and apparently abandoned. --RL0919 (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per incorrect lower-case i in India. :P -- œ^™ 05:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Wide Area Networks in India

Template:Wide Area Networks in India (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

There is no content in this template. Orphaned template. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 06:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - unused, no content. Robofish (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox MSingh cabinet

Template:Infobox MSingh cabinet (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Not used. Not likely to be used, when latest cabinet info is the one that is used in articles. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 06:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - unused, and doesn't seem particularly useful, when we have articles like First Manmohan Singh Cabinet. Robofish (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:LS1952b-Sibasagar-North

Template:LS1952b-Sibasagar-North (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Not used. No value. Not likely to be used. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 06:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Convert into an article on the by-election. --Soman (talk) 10:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as orphaned. Converting into an article would also be acceptable if anyone wants to do it. Robofish (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. About a year ago, tens of these templates were deleted (all starting with LS*). This somehow was missed. Also, in some of the cases, such deleted templates were in use on 1 page. It was decided to move the content into the article page and delete the template. If it was unused, template was deleted. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 01:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Allison Iraheta

Template:Allison Iraheta (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

It's simply too early for this. The only entries are a single and an album. Well the album isn't even out yet. It doesn't come out until early December. And outside of Chris Daughtry, the rate of success of fourth place finishers isn't exactly high on American Idol. Let's wait until she either releases me or becomes notable enough for this navbox. User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 05:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Too early. GlassCobra 14:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Not enough links available yet. No prejudice against recreating if/when there are more articles. --RL0919 (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Biju Janata Dal

Template:Biju Janata Dal (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

A navbox with no navigation Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nom and there is no content. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 07:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Request not to delete. I created this template to be able to store the meta tags for this party that are then used in {{Infobox}} sections on various election results pages. Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Biju_Janata_Dal lists the subpages for this party, on similar lines to Congress subpages and BJP subpages I shall try to add some information & navigation to this template.
  Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 09:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see Aditya.krishnan.82 talk page item - his agreement that this template can be deleted, as the need was for only the other sub-items, like party colours, flags, etc. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 10:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - not needed, as accepted by the creator. Robofish (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:AcademyAwardBestOriginalScreenplay

Template:AcademyAwardBestOriginalScreenplay (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Orphaned template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Succession boxes are used for this instead. --RL0919 (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and RL0919. Robofish (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Black Eyed Peas singles

Template:Black Eyed Peas singles (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Appears to be redundant to {{Black Eyed Peas}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge. I suggest to make to include it in {{Black Eyed Peas}}, having kept formatting. Really, the list of singles in {{Black Eyed Peas}} too big.--Andrey! 16:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Merge into {{Black Eyed Peas}} since they are clearly redundant. There are a couple of singles listed that aren't on the broader template. As navboxes go, {{Black Eyed Peas}} isn't excessively large, so a couple more links shouldn't be a problem. --RL0919 (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Jada

Template:Jada (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Minor band, not enough links to justify having a template. GlassCobra 01:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - the last two links are incidental; there isn't enough real content here to justify a navbox. Robofish (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Old discussions

[edit] November 16

[edit] Template:WikiProject Arts

Template:WikiProject Arts (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Project banner was mistakenly nominated at WP:MFD instead of here. Moving discussion at request of nominator. All comments made previously at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:WikiProject Arts are reproduced below, starting with the proper nomination statement. My moving of this nomination is not intended as a statement for or against. RL0919 (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The Arts project doesn't use a banner. It's an umbrella project overseeing/coordinating a large family of projects, in turn looking after hundreds of thousands of articles. We don't have time to banner all these articles, nor would there be any point as assessments etc. are done by the constituent projects. If would be best to delete this template, otherwise some people may think it is in use, and waste their time distributing it. --Kleinzach 08:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete: I created it to replace some {{WikiProject Notice|Arts}}s, but it is no longer used. —Ms2ger (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Not to nitpick, but shouldn't this be moved to TfD? MfD is only for pages in the Wikipedia:, User:, Portal:, Help:, and MediaWiki: namespaces, as well as talk namespaces... A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Probably does belong at TfD. In the meantime, I put "noinclude" tags around the MfD notice, because it was showing up on every page where the template was transcluded, making it look like each of those pages was nominated for deletion. (The tag used for TfDs is specially designed to make it clear that only the template is nominated, not the page it is used on.) --RL0919 (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was under the impression that all project-related stuff went to Mfd. Obviously I was wrong. If someone can help move this cleanly over to Tfd I'd be grateful. --Kleinzach 22:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I can move it to today's TfD page and update the tagging. Only significant consequence will be to "reset the clock" on the seven days for discussion. I don't want to move it into the page for the 14th because that could throw some folks off who already made their comments on those discussions. --RL0919 (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: New comments since move to TfD should be placed below this note.

• Comment how about converting this to a warning that there is no such template, and to please use a template from one of the subprojects? 76.66.197.2 (talk) 05:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it would actually be used. It's not as if there are lots of these boxes out there 'in the wild'. --Kleinzach 06:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - seems to have been created by mistake/misunderstanding. This template isn't needed, as one of the templates for the various sub-WikiProjects should be used instead. Robofish (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Stubclass

Template:Stubclass (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Was deprecated in favour of a {{WPBannerMeta}} descendant with auto=yes. No longer used; no particular reason for keeping it. AFAIK, no WikiProjects/bots still use it; if they do, please comment as such. — This, that, and the other [talk] 08:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Unused but still supported by {{WikiProject Ships}}, and could in theory still be used by several of the few remaining non-{{WPBannerMeta}} project banners. PC78 (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I have asked WP Ships if they want to change to WPBannerMeta, but they're not very enthusiastic. They may be a bit deviant: they have dropped their Importance scale, which would appear to be a core part of Wikipedia 1.0 and the existence of WikiProjects. Looks like it may be a while yet. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't see importance levels as being in any way necessary for Wikiprojects, since WPPs should be for the improvement of articles, and that doesn't require an importance rating. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 04:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - deprecated, and doesn't actually seem to be used anywhere. I expect WP Ships should be able to manage without it. Robofish (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Per my above comment, I think it was a bit premature tagging the template as "deprecated". It may not be currently used, but I don't think it could reasonably said that it "has no likelihood of being used". PC78 (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Kevin Lima

[edit] November 15

[edit] Template:Mario and sonic at the olympic games

Template:Mario and sonic at the olympic games (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

[edit] Template:Hyperoperations

Template:Hyperoperations (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

• Delete. Limited template; not rationally expanadable, and 6 entries were just created by the template author; and those and 2 others have been suggested for merging. Should probably only be in the hyperoperation article, even if it were sensible. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. After what I've done to it, it should be reasonable. ²³¹₉₁Pa (chat me!) 08:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  It's improved by removal of the redirects, but still doesn't belong on any articles other than possibly Hyperoperation, tetration (and inverses, being considered to be merged into it), and pentation (considered for merging into hyperoperation). Putting it on hyper-1, hyper-2, and hyper-3 operations is clearly inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - not currently used on any articles, and only likely to be used on one at best - Hyperoperations (and even there its value is uncertain). If it's to be used in that article, it should be substituted; either way, I don't see the need for a template. Robofish (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Solution: Substitute it onto that article and then delete it. ²³¹₉₁Pa (chat me!) 03:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Sonic Retro

[edit] Template:Harvey Birdman

[edit] Template:Self-citation

Template:Self-citation (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Used in very few articles. Essentially the same as {{Verify credibility}}, but only for self-published sources; however, it categorizes articles using it as having unsourced statements, which makes its name is misleading as the information is cited, just to a biased and therefore possibly unpreferable source; not all self-citations are improper. Suggest deletion and replacing the few instances it is presently used with {{verify credibility}}. Cybercobra (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment, someone completely changed the purpose of the template. It was originally marked to mark references that cite other Wikipedia articles. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That usage makes more sense, although I would think removing the reference and tagging with {{cn}} might be better as circular self-refs like that should be deathly avoided. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I think it should be rebuilt to be an inline version of {{primarysources}} 76.66.197.2 (talk) 04:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • That tag isn't really applicable at the inline level. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree. In fact, there already is an inline version of it: {{Primary source claim}}. -- œ^™ 04:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Then this tag (as presently written) is redundant. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Conversely if it applies to circular citing of Wikipedia, it should refer to that section of WP:RS which states that WP can never be cited on WP as a reliable source. The template should be fixed to do its original job. Collect (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe I'll just re-create this so you can make this into a redirect to verify credibility. {{Circular-ref}}? ViperSnake151  Talk  15:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - acceptable inline template, although it probably should be modified so it isn't categorising articles as unsourced (Category:Articles lacking reliable references would be more appropriate). If changed to be about highlighting self-references to Wikipedia, that would be OK as well, but the documentation should make it clear what it's actually for. Robofish (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Jcon

Template:Jcon (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Redundant to {{jct}}. Also note the recent TFD of {{Junction}} - Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 1#Template:Junction. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as template provides additional functionality and cleaner layout for additions than the bulky {{jct}} template. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Interstate_Highways#TFD for additional discussions. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Consensus there is to delete duplicate templates. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I know, but thats US roads, I was just pointing to further discussion. Clearly one look at the code will show this isn't a duplicate as well. It CAN duplicate the function of jct, but it can also do a lot more. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Such as? --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
        • For one I can display everything individually - Just a sign, or just a link, or just a chunk of text properly formatted, and have every reference to any road use the template so that any style changes can be applied universally. I can use it in infobox road to display things that would normally be impossible with the infobox itself (Such as larger shields in the browse routes section at the bottom). I can change the size of the shield, because I use actual images of the shield and not one I made in paint, and sometimes the numbers aren't visible at 20x25px. None of this is possible with jct, and my attempts to integrate it would be reversed because I don't know how to read terrible code and 15 billion transclusions, and because the three or four editors at the US roads wikiproject have decided that they own the jct template. (And all road articles in every country in the world) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Style changes can be done universally with {{jct}} as well, and if you want larger shield sizes, you just change Template:Jct/shield. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
            • I'm not going to continue arguing, but to the second one, that is a permanent change. {{Jcon}} has a parameter, so I can change it on a case by case basis. In order to do that in jct, I'd have to pass a parameter through about 5 or 6 transclusions. I did this at one point, and had it reverted because it affected articles world-wide. At what point does the desire to have just one template become overwhelmed by the inability of individual jurisdictions to modify them to their needs, or the convoluted nature of that absurdly massive template? To the first one, yes they can be applied universally, but I can't use jct to do the following: Kawartha Lakes Road 57

            So that should I decide in a few months that it fits better as Kawartha Lakes X instead of Kawartha Lakes Road X, I can change one word in one template, and have every single instance of that road name (since I can use the template for unlinked plain text) change just like that. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete or edit to call {{jct}} (like {{infobox SG rail}} calls {{infobox rail}}). --NE2 05:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Why does Floydian have to use template jct if it does not meet his requirements? If he follows the standards of display with small changes to make it more user friendly, which is what he wants for the pages he is creating, and if his template is linked to the jct template so that he is aware of changes in format, what is this rigidity of having to use jct? stmrlbs|talk 05:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

And for the record, yes, you can change the shield size in jct/shield with a hard coded size for the roads Floydian uses. But, that does not affect the shields at the bottom of infobox road. You have to change something else to get those shields to change. For the user to be able to set the size of the shield through a parameter, something that gives the user much more flexibility, you have to add the size parameter to template:jct, template:jct/1, and template:jct/shield. And that is only if you specify size on the first road of jct. To be able to specify a size for the browse part of infobox road, you have to change templates: template:infobox road, template:infobox road/ON browse, template:infobox road/browse, template:infobox road/browse route. It is not because these templates have not been coded the best way possible, it is because of the restrictions of the Wikipedia templating language that makes these templates much more complex than they really need to be. And this is not solely my opinion, but is a problem that has been discussed in other places [5] quote from WikiTech:As many folks have noted, our current templating system works ok for simple things, but doesn't scale well -- even moderately complex conditionals or text-munging will quickly turn your template source into what appears to be line noise.[6] I've made changes to all these templates in my user space, but frankly, since wikipedia has no way to test changes like these for such heavily used templates, like you would in a real programming environment, I feel it is safer to let Floydian use his specially made templates for his small area, rather than forcing standards that are overly restrictive and for whose good? What is best for the person out there reading these location pages? Frankly, I think if a page follows a general format, with some minor variations for user friendliness, then I don't understand the problem with his templates. stmrlbs|talk 05:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment (Updated 18 Nov. 09): Is Jcon really redundant, or is it an alternative that produces similar results? The redundant deletion criteria also requires the other template be better-designed. If it duplicates results without nested sub-template patches it is not redundant. If it makes data entry easier it is not a lesser design. Second, (judging by peripheral discussion(s)) there may be some confusion, on my part at least, regarding Template guidelines and the/a roads project MOS guideline. Should an article guideline (dare I say transclude?) indirectly dictate terms regarding a template deletion rule? Finally, if they have not already, it might be good to have some input from wikimedia folk, if it is truly that important or well advised to remove this template, possibly find another solution, etc. -MornMore (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC) 07:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Another problem with Jcon is it does not handle the situation of two routes multiplexed together. This is a template that does not simplify coding much to the end user, is not as versatile, and does not handle all the possible junction scenarios for Ontario roads. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Yet. I'm adding those features in time instead of starting with a cluttered mess like {{jct}} is. Also, there are almost no instance of junctions with multiplexed roads in Ontario. There are many concurrencies, which are handled differently and work fine with {{jcon}}. I can only think of a small handful of concurrencies in the King's Highway system. 7 and 8 in Kitchener, 403 and QEW in Oakville and Burlington, and 400 and 69 near Parry Sound. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: It's redundant to {{Jct}} and even to {{Junction}}. It's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. The creator of this template has repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of the Canadian Roads WikiProject which suggests following WP:ELG. Even as such, WP:HWY, the parent project of CRWP, suggests following ELG, and {{Jct}} is ELG-compliant. --Fredddie™ 06:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  Jcon follows WP:ELG as well. The Canadian Roads wikiproject has 0 participating members at this point in time (if its more than that, they have not commented as of yet). What I have questioned is one tiny little blurb in WP:ELG mentioning to use abbreviations in exit lists. {{Jcon}} has uses outside of exit lists. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  Does Jcon use abbreviations in exit lists as WP:ELG says? If no, then how does it follow WP:ELG? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  Because its a single sentence in the much larger guideline that says to use commonly used abbreviations. In Canada, abbreviations are not commonly used, and therefore I am still abiding by that (and besides, my lack of use of abbreviations is independent of the deletion of this template). It's a guideline, not an orthodox religion; minor semantics. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  So in summary, no, it does not comply with ELG. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

  Perhaps a second reading: "Because its a single sentence in the much larger guideline that says to use commonly used abbreviations. In Canada, abbreviations are not commonly used, and therefore I am still abiding by that." - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 09:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a GUIDELINE. Not a LAW - nor does it say anywhere that everyone has to use the same template. It might be recommended, but using that exact guideline is not a requirement. In the introduction, it says "this exit list guide has been created to give editors a basis for creating, editing and maintaining exit lists pertaining to all highways around the world." Basis, as in a general foundation. It also says in section 4. "Please keep in mind that this is a guideline. In some cases, notably concurrency termini, there are different methods of doing the same thing, and this guideline makes no preference of one system over another." stmrlbs|talk 04:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• But you have to have a pretty darn good reason for ignoring a guideline. As for the last quote, it's being used out of context - as one of the editors involved with creating the guideline, that means something else entirely. (I could explain, but as this discussion is super long already, I won't.) --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

  I do. As I explained above: WP:ELG says to use commonly used abbreviations. In Canada, abbreviations are not commonly used. Not in speech, not on maps, not on road signs. This is beyond the fact that I use {{jcon}} for several things outside of exit/junction lists already. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 09:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This statement piqued my curiosity. Do you have any evidence that Canadians don't abbreviate? I can find one fairly easily. --Fredddie™ 06:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that they DO use abbreviations? One highways with a long unnumbered name is an exception. The 401, known as the McDonald Cartier Freeway, is abbreviated as MCF on old signs. This is far different from the abbreviations which I wish to avoid. On top of this, even if you find a few examples, all you are proving is that SOME people use abbreviations. Can you prove that the majority of Canadians use abbreviations? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The residents of British Columbia might disagree with you as well. Anyway, since you flipped my question back around on me, does it mean you can't find any? I'm not going to say "I told you so." --Fredddie™ 07:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, there's this book. It's a book of English and French abbreviations used in Canada written by a Canadian author. It's $50, so it's probably pretty thick. --Fredddie™ 07:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Unlike trying to find a source that says 'no, Canadians don't use abbreviation for roads like CR and RR and DR and Hwy,' its very easy to find a book of abbreviations, but does that mean it is in common use? I'm also concerned with Ontario, not British Columbia. I can point out the Toronto and Area mapbooks from MapArt, RandMcNally, and Perlys, as well as the street signs, and possibly some newspaper stories to show examples that do not use abbreviations. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 08:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question. You simply cannot answer a question by flipping it on its side and asking it back to me. I won't seriously consider answering my your questions until mine are answered. --Fredddie™ 13:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Why, you're the one that insists on using something other than the normal filled in spelling. To use an abbreviation, you must provide me a source. If you cannot, then abbreviations should not be used. I also did answer your question with: Unlike trying to find a source that says 'no, Canadians don't use abbreviation for roads like CR and RR and DR and Hwy,' its very easy to find a book of abbreviations, but does that mean it is in common use? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Another pissing contest. Great. --Fredddie™

No, another request for you to provide sources for something that if YOU cannot provide sources for, will not apply. Do we abbreviate every word on wikipedia? No. Why? Because unless there is proof that it is abbreviated, it is not. Learn the rules of wikipedia, learn the difference between a guideline (optional) and policy (mandatory), and then come back when you actually have a valid argument to present, instead of presenting me a question through a logical fallacy (disproving a negative). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Burden of proof is on you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No; How is the burden of proof on me to find a source that says abbreviations are not used? Because he asked first? You must provide proof that abbreviations are used, or they should be removed from all road articles. I'd be happy to take this to the village pump to see what the answer is from editors that aren't stonewalling, or can I just point you to WP:OR and have that solve the burden of proof. You are submitting original research, and I am saying "no, provide a source." - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me reiterate: It is not policy to use Jct. It is a guideline. The difference between policy and guideline, from WP:Guideline:

Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards that all users should normally follow. They are often closely related to the five pillars of Wikipedia. All policy pages are in Category:Wikipedia policy; see also List of policies. Guidelines are primarily advisory. Where a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, the policy normally takes precedence. Guideline pages can be found under Category:Wikipedia guidelines. See also List of guidelines.

stmrlbs|talk 03:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Please provide us a list of policies that cover style. I'm genuinely curious. --Fredddie™ 07:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of any policies.. do you? But that was why you asked, wasn't it? The implication being that since there are no policies dictating style, that therefore, the guidelines should be treated as policy? I disagree if that is your intent. I think the reason these are style "GUIDELINES" is because that is what they are meant to be - Guidelines, not Policies.

The closest part of Wikipedia where that might be the case (in that it is an overall strong guideline) is the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style. And it says right at the beginning:

Internal consistency:An overriding principle is that style and formatting should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole. Being consistent within an article promotes clarity and cohesion. Therefore, even where the Manual of Style permits alternative usages, be consistent within an article.

Stability of articles'''The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.^[1] Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

from:Wikipedia:Abbreviations "Always consider whether an abbreviation may be better simply written out in full, thus avoiding potential confusion for those not familiar with it - we do not have the same space constraints as paper."

Floydian is wants to use the full name vs abbreviations because this is what the people in his area are familiar with. This follows Wikipedia intent - to create an article that is useful to the reader - it is not the intent of these guidelines to sacrifice user friendliness to a guideline that might be good in one part of Wikipedia, but is too rigid for other parts. Floydian has been consistent within his articles and his changes have been to increase user friendliness with impact to the fewest users. There is no policy that says that he has to use template:jct if it does not meet his needs. stmrlbs|talk 18:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Where have any of us said using {{Jct}} is policy? Those of us who use it consider it superior. Could it be better? Sure. Help those of us who use it make it better, don't discount it and create forks because you don't want abbreviations. --Fredddie™ 00:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Jct needs a complete rewrite. Its too much of a mess to work with as is. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Floydian and Stmrlbs have successfully distracted the issue - the reason why the TFD was filed was to get rid of a template fork. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but its a different template. Have you not looked at its code or documentation? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It does exactly the same thing {{jct}} does. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - {{jcon}} seems to be for roads in Ontario, Canada. While {{jct}} seems to mainly be for roads in the USA. And no, Canada is not a part of USA. --David Göthberg (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • But are Ontario roads different enough from US roads to require a different template? --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they have more snow. And are you going to include Iraqi roads too? You are at least occupying that country. And what about Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Ireland? They speak English too. Are you going to force them to use {{jct}} too? But seriously, why should Canadian editors have to wade through a long documentation about US roads when they want to add a Canadian road? --David Göthberg (talk) 06:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The only difference between using {{jct}} for Canada is using the province abbreviation instead of the state abbreviation. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

And adding to it? Explain the steps to say... add shield images for Prince Edward Island, when they are made. Jct is far too convoluted. Unlike templates for things such as rivers or mountain where there is global consistency, infobox road and jct require settings for every country, state, and county. There is far too much for one template to cover the whole world. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 08:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think someone set up Prince Edward Island already. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Mitch's sandbox shows Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia as done. Ontario also has its 40 odd counties.

By "done" you mean {{Jct}} is using freely available shields, right? Thanks to those pesky copyrights, some provinces likely will never be "done". --Fredddie™ 21:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, as was done for Alberta, it may be possible to create variations that lack any insignia for use. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to put an end to the fork argument with a representation. I can use this: {{Jcon|PB|8|ot=y}} and get: Peterborough County Road 8 . Should Peterborough ever change its name, voila! Everything updated like that! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:This is a redirect

[edit] Completed discussions

The contents of this section are transcluded from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell (edit)

If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion), by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'.

[edit] Closing discussions

Closing procedures:

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Administrator instructions

Closing in progress:

• None Currently

[edit] To review

Templates for which each transclusion requires individual attention and analysis before the template is deleted.

Please link to the per-day page that has the discussion on it.

• Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_March_23#Template:Film_screenshot_fur

  • Template:Film screenshot fur (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - for all transclusions, an acceptable fair use rationale must be provided or the image should be tagged with {{Dfu}} or nominated at WP:FFD. JPG-GR (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] To convert

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to categories, lists or portals get put here until the conversion is completed.

Please link to the per-day page that has the discussion on it.

• None currently

[edit] To Substitute

Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (i.e. the template should be merged with the article) get put here until the substitutions are completed, then the template is deleted from template space.

Please link to the per-day page that has the discussion on it.

• None Currently

[edit] To orphan

These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that they can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages need not (and in fact should not) be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).

Please link to the per-day page that has the discussion on it.

• None currently

[edit] Ready for deletion

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached and have been orphaned can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when link indicates the page no longer exists. If these are to be candidates for speedy deletion, please give a specific reason.

Please link to the per-day page that has the discussion on it.

• None currently

[edit] Archive and Indices